The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20130250 Ver 1_USACE Correspondence_20130614Strickland, Bev From: Kulz, Eric Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:55 AM To: Strickland, Bev Subject: FW: Comments From Mitigation Plan Review - Norkett Branch Restoration Project; Union County (SAW- 2012 - 01082) (UNCLASSIFIED) Attachments: Norkett Branch Mitigation Plan Review Memo.pdf For Laserfiche 13 -0250. Eric W. Kulz Environmental Senior Specialist N.C. Division of Water Quality Wetlands, Buffers, Stormwater - Compliance & Permitting Unit 1650 MSC Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650 Phone: (919) 807 -6476 E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Crumbley, Tyler SAW [ mailto: Tyler.Crumbley(@usace.army.mil] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 10:49 AM To: bowers.todd(@epa.gov; Karoly, Cyndi; Kulz, Eric; Montgomery, Lori; Burkhard, Michael W; Krebs, Rob; Sollod, Steve; Cox, David R.; Wilson, Travis W.; Jones, Scott SAW; Kichefski, Steven L SAW; Wicker, Henry M JR SAW; Marella Buncick ( Marella Buncick(@fws.gov); Jurek, Jeff; Pearce, Guy; fritz.rohde(@noaa.gov; Mcdonald, Mike; Wiesner, Paul; Baumgartner, Tim; John Hutton; Emily Reinicker; Fuemmeler, Amanda J SAW; Johnson, Alan Cc: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW Subject: Comments From Mitigation Plan Review - Norkett Branch Restoration Project; Union County (SAW- 2012 - 01082) (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE All, The 30 -day comment review period for the Norkett Branch Restoration project (SAW 2012 - 01082)(EEP# 95360), closed on 13 June, 2013. All comments that were posted on the Mitigation Plan Review Portal during the review process are attached for your records. Additionally, comments can be reviewed on the Mitigation Plan Review Portal. We have evaluated the comments generated during the review period, and determined that the concerns raised during the review can be addressed in the final mitigation plan. In the event that these comments are not sufficiently addressed in the final mitigation plan, special conditions (including additional performance standards) may be added to the permit to ensure that the issues raised by the IRT have been addressed. Accordingly, it is our intent to approve this Mitigation Plan unless a member of the NCIRT initiates the Dispute Resolution Process, described in the Final Mitigation Rule (33 CFR Section 332.8(e)). Please note that initiation of this process requires that a senior official of the agency objecting to the approval of the mitigation plan (instrument amendment) notify the District Engineer by letter within 15 days of this email (by COB on 29 June, 2013). Please notify me if you intend to initiate the Dispute Resolution Process. 1 Provided that we do not get any objections, we will provide an approval letter to NCEEP at the conclusion of the 15 -day Dispute Resolution window. This approval will also transmit all comments generated during the review process to NCEEP, and indicate what comments must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All NCIRT members will receive a copy of this letter and all comments for your records. Thanks for your participation, Tyler Crumbley Regulatory Division Wilmington District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 11405 Falls of Neuse Road Wake Forest, NC 27587 (919) 846 -2564 Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE N REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343 CESAW- RG /Crumbley 14 June, 2013 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECT: Norkett Branch- NCIRT Comments During 30 -day Mitigation Plan Review Purpose: The comments and responses listed below were posted to the NCEEP Mitigation Plan Review Portal during the 30 -day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule. NCEEP Project Name: Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site, Union County, NC USACE AID #: SAW- 2012 -01082 NCEEP #: 95360 30 -Day Comment Deadline: 13 June, 2013 1. Eric Kulz, NCDWQ, 30 May, 2013: • 1 discussed this project with Alan Johnson at the MRO, and his comments are also included. We were kind of concerned about the size of the riffle material proposed for the smaller tribs. It was hard to tell exactly, but it looked like they are proposing riffle gravel /cobble salvaged from elsewhere on the site for the riffles in UT2 and UT2A (as opposed to "chunky riffles "), which was indicated on Figure 5.1 to be in the 6" diam. range. The existing D50 for UT2 is 0.2 ", and the D84 is 1.8" (no pebble count data for UT2A) so that does sound a little large. The largest D50 found at the site is about 0.3" and the D 84 is 1.12 ". So the proposed riffle material does seem a bit large for the smaller tribs. No pebble count data were identified for the reference reaches. We acknowledge that research done /observations made on small natural (e.g. not restored) Slate Belt streams by both EEP and DWQ over the years suggest that surface flows in these streams (and even larger 2nd /3rd order streams), naturally dry up, often leaving pools with water and riffles with sub - surface /hyporheic flow only. However, we recommend that you consider sizing the riffle materials down in the smaller tribs, and seed with coarse sand /fine gravel as well to try to maintain flow over the riffles rather than through. • 1 also have a question regarding the substrate for the SPSC, which proposes a substrate material of sand and wood chips. As occurs in bioretention cells, we would expect that the wood chips decompose and subsidence occurs. Will this result in undercutting and /or undermining of the rock structures comprising the step pools, thus limiting their function? • Finally, Alan indicated there was a cattle "wallow" in a wetland on UT 2. How will this area be addressed, and are there other areas where concentrated flow from areas where livestock congregate currently occur? How will these be addressed (if present)? NCEEP Response: Paul Wiesner, 3 June, 2013: These comments are in response to Eric Kulz's comments dated 5/30/13: The riffle details on Sheet 5.1 were meant to indicate a 6 -inch deep layer of substrate, not a 6" particle size class, for the tributaries. Norkett Branch will have a 12- inch deep layer of substrate. The wording on the details will be revised for the final mitigation plan to make this more clear. The 6 -inch deep layer of tributary riffle substrate will be comprised of native material found on site, and so will include the 0.2" to 1.2" range coarse substrate sizes sampled in the existing streams but will also have larger rocks as well as on site soils and sands mixed in. Based on our experience with other project sites in the slate belt, we have been able to successfully harvest coarse material on site for riffle construction during the necessary channel and floodplain grading activities. The well - graded mix comprised of a wide range of small to large particles seems to work best to keep water on the surface. This well - graded mix riffle is in contrast to the earlier generation of structures built from one consistent class of quarry stone. The SPSC woodchip /sand mixture adheres to the standard design detail and specification for this type of BMP. Our understanding was that the IRT wanted to implement two different BMPs side -by -side on the site for long term evaluation. We expect that as sediment is filtered by the BMP and settles within the channel, this collected volume could offset wood ship subsidence. There is an existing wallow in Wetland I (wetlands are labeled on Figure 7 of the report). This area is also shown on Sheet 2.14 of the plan set, in the right floodplain near proposed Station 311 +40. The area will be placed under protection with a conservation easement, planted, and fenced out from future cattle access. We think that this area will stabilize over time with cattle exclusion and planting. Other areas where concentrated flow enters the floodplain from outside the conservation easement, such as in the left floodplain near Station 301 +50 (Sheet 2.12) or Station 310 +50 (Sheet 2.14) will benefit from the proposed vernal pool installation. Vernal pools will be approximately 12" to 18" deep and will intercept agricultural runoff for storage and treatment prior to the runoff reaching the project streams. 2. T. Crumbley and T. Tugwell, USACE, 12 June, 2013: • Pg. 27 -28, and Plan Sheets: Please provide a discussion on the impacts to and protection measures for existing wetlands (high visibility fencing, avoidance). Impacts to existing wetlands need to be accounted for in the final mit plan and ensuing NWP application, including explanations on how the impacts /losses will be replaced. • Pg. 35, For increased credit on buffers wider than standard width, please provide an additional discussion and the proposed credit amounts to be included in the final mitigation plan on a figure that demonstrates where the wider buffers will be located. • Pg. 36, As per the correspondence provided from previous IRT review (email dated 3, April, 2013), we agree with the proposed BMP credit calculations, but would like to remind NCEEP that this approach was conducted and reviewed only for this particular site and any future proposals will be reviewed on a case -by -case basis. • Pg. 53, Sec. 11.0, The mitigation plan states: "If all performance criteria have been successfully met and two bankfull events have occurred during separate years, Wildlands may propose to terminate stream and /or vegetation monitoring." This statement must be amended to state that this may only be proposed after year 5, and IAW the Early Closure Provision in the EEP Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation, Nov. 7t", 2011. • Pg. 54, Sec. 11.1.2- The As -Built survey should include a longitudinal profile.